You have 0 free articles left this month.
Big Law

Federal Court rules on Rebel Wilson’s defamation trial

Australian actress Rebel Wilson has learnt whether Instagram posts about young star Charlotte MacInnes amounted to defamation.

July 22, 2026 By Naomi Neilson
Share this article on:
expand image

The Federal Court of Australia found Wilson did not defame the Perth-born actress in a series of social media posts that alleged she covered up sexual harassment to further her career and to block the release of the Pitch Perfect star’s debut film, The Deb.

In a post shared shortly after the decision, Wilson wrote: “Thank you to the judge and the Australian legal system for this substantial win today in THE DEB matter. I look forward to moving on!”

 
 

The allegations concerned a bath MacInnes took with international producer and financier of The Deb, Amanda Ghost, after the latter had a medical incident. Both women said they were clothed in swimwear at the time and denied that anything inappropriate occurred.

Wilson claimed MacInnes approached her the following day about this incident and said she felt “uncomfortable”.

In her decision, handed down on Wednesday (22 July) afternoon, Justice Elizabeth Raper said it would be an “understatement” to describe the circumstances of the bath to be “unusual”.

Of the 19 imputations alleged, only one was made out: that MacInnes had changed her story about feeling uncomfortable in the bath.

Justice Raper found that imputation was not defamatory.

While it was not a requirement of the court to determine whether MacInnes would have been able to establish the publication caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm, Justice Raper said Wilson “would have established this imputation was substantially true”.

MacInnes also failed to establish a breach of confidence.

There was some debate over whether the trial was to be determined under NSW or West Australian jurisdiction. The Defamation Act 2005 is uniform nationally except in Western Australia, where the serious harm test has not been implemented.

Had West Australian law applied, MacInnes would not have had to prove her reputation suffered, or was likely to suffer, serious harm.

Justice Raper found the applicable law was NSW.

The lengthy proceedings canvassed a number of sensational allegations, including that MacInnes’ legal bills were being paid by a “Russian oligarch billionaire” and the young star had “flip-flopped” on the allegations to advance her music career.

More to come.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.

Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly, as well as other titles under the Momentum Media umbrella. She regularly writes about matters before the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Courts, the Civil and Administrative Tribunals, and the Fair Work Commission. Naomi has also published investigative pieces about the legal profession, including sexual harassment and bullying, wage disputes, and staff exoduses. You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au.